Oh, the irony …
The Met Office, these days prefers the term /is dropping the term Met Office: Weather and climate change. I am not certain.
I didn't even know it was incorporating that philosophy untile recently. It had taken command of a new supercomputer that didn't work very well in 2009. I suppose it does these days.
Because they want a new one.
Personally I think they should get it. But for goodness sake set it up somewhere they can use the heat effluent to warm more than the environment.
The computer uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power a small town. Which produces 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.
I'm not knocking that. In fact I am even in favour of nuclear power. I see no reason why a well run modern power plant couldn't be housed near London. They have housed them all around my home for decades. (Good job my grandfather left Scotland in the dark ages though. I wouldn't fancy living close to a Scottish Nuclear power plant.)
The thing is that just getting a super computer to work is not the only problem. Getting one to work that won't burn the house down is a major factor.
The Spanish have come up with a design for something 10 times more powerful than the MetO's present toy. But it requires over 7 megawats of electricity.
Thats a small city's power requirements isn't it?
To do stuff they haven't quite got the hang of in 90 years of trying: